PDA

View Full Version : UNSC bid of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil rejected. Is Japan to blame ?



Maciamo
Jul 8, 2005, 12:01
Japan Times : 'G-4' submits resolution on UNSC, finds just 23 backers (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050708a1.htm)


Japan, Germany, India and Brazil jointly submitted a resolution Wednesday at U.N. headquarters in New York to expand the U.N. Security Council, with only 23 other members listed as joint backers.

The four nations, coined the "Group of Four," submitted the resolution despite uncertainty over whether it would get the two-thirds approval, or 128 votes, needed for adoption by the U.N. General Assembly.


That's a far cry from what they needed.


Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura will head to London to meet with his G-4 counterparts Saturday to discuss their next move, and with nations from Africa to solicit their support.
...
No nations in Asia, where Japan has provided official development assistance for decades and hoped to gather support, signed the resolution.
...
China, which is against Japan's candidacy for the UNSC, also lobbied against it.

Japan cannot find support among any Asian nation in spite of their heavy development aid and investment, so they turn to corrupt the already heavily corruped Africa. It strikes me as odd as Japan has very little natural affinity with Africa. Most Japanese people I have heard speak of Africa see it as a distant continent they know very little about. For example I was surprised to find out that most of the Japanese I quizzed (incl. my wife) didn't know even the name of about half of the countries in Africa.

How are really Japan's relations with Africa ?

Looking at the statistics for immigration/emigration (http://www.wa-pedia.com/society/japanese_living_abroad.shtml), only about 9,000 Africans live in Japan, and 6,000 Japanese in Africa - and that includes Egypt, Morocco and South Africa. In other words, there is virtually no population exchange (even for business or international organisations) between Japan and most of the 54 African nations. This is a stark contrast to the almsot 900,000 Japanese living in the rest of the world and about 2 millions foreigners living in Japan.

Looking at the Japanese Exports (http://www.stat.go.jp/data/nenkan/pdf/y1501000.pdf), Africa's share is a mere 1% of the total, and over 1/3 of that goes to South Africa. As for Japanese Imports (http://www.stat.go.jp/data/nenkan/pdf/y1502000.pdf), only 1.7% come from Africa, over half of which from South Africa.

This shows that the entire African continent has in fact very little inter-exchange with Japan. So that makes me laugh when Japan has to look at Africa for support. This is not only true for the UN, but also for the International Whaling Commission, and other international organisations. This shows how Japan behaves when it cannot get the support from enough Western countries. It turns to Africa because they are easy to bribe, and because other Asian nations usually do not want to support Japan politically because of resentment still felt about WWII. This is what it means when we say that "Japan is an economic giant, but a political dwarf".

Bramicus
Jul 8, 2005, 12:53
The United Nations has become an expensive farce: The United States paying the lion's share of the budget for the world's largest anti-American organization.

lexico
Jul 25, 2005, 06:55
The reflection of Japan's past behavior on its standing in the community of nations is astounding. Although without a deep analysis of all the factors at work in this particular case, it might turn out that "morality" is indeed a decisive factor and qualification for entry into the United Nations Security Council with permanent membership notwithstanding our lengthy and heated debate, "Is Japan morally qualified for UNSC permanent membership ? (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17361&highlight=moral+morally+morality)" where the fact was presented that morality had never been officially a requirement for such.

I may try phrasing it;
"What pertains to law and justice to law and justice, what to business to business,"
"Might does not make right," or even
"ODA's may not buy love, but there's always the bribing oneself in thru the back door." :D
How about "ODA's are stingy and profitable; bribing is costly."
or "make friends before in need." But my favoite has always been

"Man run behind car be exahusted; Man run before car be tired !" :D

Duo
Jul 25, 2005, 08:05
The United Nations has become an expensive farce: The United States paying the lion's share of the budget for the world's largest anti-American organization.

Actually the US hasn't payed their dues to the UN in quite a while now...

lexico
Jul 25, 2005, 08:18
Actually the US hasn't payed their dues to the UN in quite a while now...Is that why they got criticized ?
*bill reads: three months overdue... notice to quit or ..."

Bramicus
Jul 25, 2005, 09:11
Actually the US hasn't payed their dues to the UN in quite a while now...You need to do your homework. The United States contributed $438 million to the United Nations' 2005 budget of more than $1.8 billion, making it the largest donor.

bossel
Jul 26, 2005, 02:06
You need to do your homework. The United States contributed $438 million to the United Nations' 2005 budget of more than $1.8 billion, making it the largest donor.
Speaking of doing your homework: paying the assessed contribution of 2005 (if the US actually already did so, don't know) does not relieve the debt from past years. If my info is correct, the US still owes the UN some 1.55 billion $ for the regular budget, peace-keeping operations & tribunals.

The US is paying (when they actually pay once in a while) the lion's share, because they have the biggest GNP. Actually, for quite a while they paid less than they would have had to acc. to the contribution key, because the US budget was over the ceiling of 25% of the combined GNPs of the world (could you call that "world GDP"?).

Bramicus
Jul 26, 2005, 08:41
paying the assessed contribution of 2005 (if the US actually already did so, don't know) does not relieve the debt from past years. If my info is correct, the US still owes the UN some 1.55 billion $ for the regular budget, peace-keeping operations & tribunals.Actually the United States has been paid up on its dues for several years, since the disagreement about five years ago was resolved. As for the matter of peacekeeping operations financing, etc., that is a different matter. Some years the United States ends up owing the United Nations; some years the United Nations owes the United States a refund. That's usually resolved by the next year and is merely a matter of bookkeeping.

I think I read somewhere that the House of Representatives has recently (over the objections of the Bush administration) passed a bill threatening to withhold half the U.S. dues unless the United Nations fulfills certain criteria. That's politics for you.

bossel
Jul 26, 2005, 22:57
Actually the United States has been paid up on its dues for several years, since the disagreement about five years ago was resolved. As for the matter of peacekeeping operations financing, etc., that is a different matter. Some years the United States ends up owing the United Nations; some years the United Nations owes the United States a refund. That's usually resolved by the next year and is merely a matter of bookkeeping.
Not really. As of May 2005 the US owed the UN for the regular budget alone a smacking 607m $, 241m $ of those are prior years' due. I don't know if & how much the US paid in June & July 2005, but I seriously doubt that they paid the whole amount.

Peacekeeping operations, US debt: 893m $
Tribunals: 54m $
Total: 1.554 billion $

lexico
Jul 27, 2005, 02:06
India slams 'alternative proposals' on UNSC (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1418759,0008.htm)
Dharam Shourie (PTI)
United Nations, July 2, 2005

In a harsh attack on UN member states like China who advocate consensus as the only basis for expansion of Security Council, India has asserted that the strength of developing nations is their numbers and to deny them vote would mean taking away their main weapon.

"To say that there should be no vote but a consensus is to disarm them (developing nations) of their main weapon. The rhetoric of anti-privilege masks the reality of a cynical defence of entrenched privilege," Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen on Friday told the United Nations General Assembly's high level segment considering a document on UN reforms to be presented to a September summit of world leaders for adoption.

Rejecting proposals which either call for expansion in only non-permanent category or seek to deny developing countries a place among permanent members, he said accepting them would mean status quo which will neither empower General Assembly, not help enhance developing nations' role in the decision making process.

Sen said "a country that displaced another through a vote" is now proposing consensus for others, an apparent reference to Communist China's bid on October 25, 1971 to replace Republic of China as sole representative of China in the UN through a procedural vote. The Assembly had then rejected credentials of Republic of China and accepted those of the People's Republic of China.

"After winning the vote by a bare majority, it proposes much above two-thirds majority for others," Sen said without naming China. "It talks of participation of developing countries but blocks their real participation through expansion of permanent membership leading to improved working methods involving them in UNSC subsidiary bodies."

The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group led by Pakistan and Italy and supported by China has proposed that expansion should be only in the non-permanent category by addition of ten members. But G-4 have drafted a resolution, which calls for addition of six permanent and four non-permanent members.US pressured China into supporting Japan's entry, but it didn't for India ?? Both the US and China are opposed to the G-4 proposal, and the 12 nations in the Pakistan lead UFC, Argentine, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, S.Korea, Malta, San Marino, Mexico, Spain, and Turkey also choose to oppose the G-4 proposal.

Keoland
Aug 11, 2005, 20:11
For example I was surprised to find out that most of the Japanese I quizzed (incl. my wife) didn't know even the name of about half of the countries in Africa.

Believe me, that's hardly exclusive to the Japanese...



This shows how Japan behaves when it cannot get the support from enough Western countries.

The problem, as noted, wasn't just with Japan, as all the applicants had similar problems.

Japan will never get Chinas' backing, just as Germany is having trouble getting France and Britain to back them: the members with permanent seats fear losing their privileged places to nations that are now more powerful - the UNSC reflects the balance of power at the end of WW2, and it really has trouble adapting to the realities of the XXIst century. Countries that were very weak at the time are now very strong, and strong nations in '45 are now quite weak compared with many newcomers. But the fact is that the UN cannot cope with change.

The lack of japanese support in Africa is not surprising: as you know, the traditional area of influence for Japan is South America (which is why Ecuador had a japanese Head of State), not Africa*. And also why Japan and Brazil work together in this endeavour (there were millions of japanese living in Brazil, many still do, and many more returned to Japan bringing with them an attraction for that area).

*: It's China who has been doing massive investiment in Africa. This also explains the lack of interest of the african states in backing Japan.

Regards,
Keoland

Xkavar
Aug 16, 2005, 16:37
How bout this for an idea?

There are seven continents on planet Earth. With the way political and economic power, and weapons, are distributed now, there has at least one member from each continent on the Security Council.

These are the main members.

Then: each continent has a number of countries that contain nuclear weapons. Each country existing on a certain continent exists under a sub-category for that continent. Debates between countries on a continent are discussed among themselves, and any major decision decided upon is brought before the main Security Council for a vote.

Work? Not work?

nurizeko
Aug 16, 2005, 18:44
I still dont see why Japan needs a perminant seat on the security council, they dont even have an army officially.

I guess germany has done more to deserve a seat, plus they really made ammends for the war i think.

India might aswell get a seat.

Im not sure about brazil, they never go beyond their borders, send peacekeepers or anything, as far as i know :S, and until they seriously crack down on random destruction of the rainforest, an important ecosystem that belongs to the world, not just them, then they shouldnt get privilidges.

Saying that, America has never been very friendly towards saving the planet so we all get to continue to live, selfish *******s.

Until the UN becomes some sort of world government its always going to struggle, especially because it fritters away money resources and labour on so much wasteful projects.

I believe in the UN, but, as i said, i think they waste time and resources better spent elsewhere, and it generally reminds me of a stereotypical group of hippies, comming together to run some sort of bussiness, all loved up on hippy ladida uber-liberal ideals, and forgetting practical activities, and generally day-dreaming away, without bucking up, knuckling down, and sorting the UN out to become an efficient, highly motivated, active body of world diplomacy and leadership.

My personal opinion mind you, so i apologise if it conflicts with anyones opinions.

Keoland
Aug 22, 2005, 21:54
How bout this for an idea?

There are seven continents on planet Earth. With the way political and economic power, and weapons, are distributed now, there has at least one member from each continent on the Security Council.

These are the main members.


The problem is, of the 5 permanent SC members, three (Russia, the UK and France) are european. That means two would have to give up their seats, something they don't want to do.

(this is also why there is not a common EU seat: it implies that France and the UK give up their seats).



Then: each continent has a number of countries that contain nuclear weapons. Each country existing on a certain continent exists under a sub-category for that continent. Debates between countries on a continent are discussed among themselves, and any major decision decided upon is brought before the main Security Council for a vote.

Work? Not work?

Look at the EU: we have a similar system for foreign affairs, yet we have immense trouble getting a concerted position (and we are often said to actually have no common position). In Asia, the issues would be even worse, and in Africa an utter chaos. Only in North America could such a system work.

In fact, that is the problem: the UNSC reflects the end of WW2 and the corresponding colonial reality, and not the modern world. This not only means that Germany and Japan are undervalued, but also - and most seriously - that many emerging nations of what is considered the 'Third World' are totally overlooked, as is the case of India, Brasil and possibly South Africa, Nigeria and Indonesia.

No matter which countries we like or dislike, one thing is certain: the current structure of the UN is deeply outdated and needs a serious overhaul for the XXIst century.

Regards,
Keoland

Xkavar
Aug 26, 2005, 02:50
The problem is, of the 5 permanent SC members, three (Russia, the UK and France) are european. That means two would have to give up their seats, something they don't want to do.

No, not giving up their seat. Heh. One seat for one continent. France, the UK, Russia, Ireland, Spain, Serbia, Croatia, Finland, it doesn't matter because they're all on one continent and only get one member to represent them as a whole. One seat represents Europe.

Whatever European nations have nuclear weapons go to the sub-committee instead. There aren't power grabs by the most powerful nations, because the continental chairman represents all and not individual countries.

France, Russia and the U.S. can have their seats. They just no longer can have the overwhelming power to serve their own individual needs previously.

Japan, and India, and China, and Vietnam, and Thailand, and everyone else, gets a single person to represent them, represent Asia, at the board.

The U.S., and Canada, and Mexico, gets a single person to represent North America at the board.

One person, one continent, one vote.

And still that wouldn't work?

donpaulo
Aug 26, 2005, 11:14
Is Japan to blame ? I would say in effect no it isn't. Its altering the status quo that is the to blame.
As far as I know Japan is the 2nd largest contributor hence they have lobbied for SC membership. This approach has some merit. If you pay for it you should have some say in it. You know that if they US were the 2nd largest contributor and they were locked out of the SC the forces of rampant conservatism and finger pointing would be bemoaning the issue.
Morals and ethics aside this debate seems to be about the UN as a worthy international forum or not. Since the UN was in effect created by and for US interests its somewhat disturbing for neo-cons and or conservatives who currently disagree with the system put in place to claim it doesn't work. When it fact it has on many occasions worked quite well. Are there flaws ? certainly. name on human designed system that is without flaws...
the question was "is japan to blame" and the answer there is no. The chinese want to make it an issue, but for the other SC members I believe it isn't an issue.

ranko
Aug 27, 2005, 11:17
Japan could try more next time , but if it still can not be approved by UN countries , the tragedy would continue .

Fact is that Japan has a lot more to do for its own fault ,crime and disgusting treatment towards asian men , women and baby ( maybe for someone is glorious )

I've read the news that Japan has collected about 90 votes for its UN bid , and the 2/3 rate is for 128 votes , still large gap for 38 votes .

celtician
Nov 2, 2005, 00:52
It's true the US of A doesn't like to pay their bills especially to the UN so...

indian_sukhoi
Feb 3, 2007, 02:59
Whatever Happens, The G-4 should Keep on Moving Ahead.

Especially Japan and India should Bit Harder.

TGI-ECT
Feb 4, 2007, 17:23
It's true the US of A doesn't like to pay their bills especially to the UN so...

There are some very good reasons behind some of the reservations the U.S. government, to include members of congress, has about throwing good money after bad into that organization called the United Nations.

A good Google search will do a much better job of providing those reasons than I have the time or inclination to provide here.

And it seems to me that while we're on the subject of financial contributions to the United Nations there is a rapidly growing economic power just a few countries west of Japan that could be putting a lot more into the pot.

.

Sirius2B
Feb 22, 2007, 03:41
I am of the ones that would have liked to see some reform in the UN to make it more democratic... This bid could have been an step in that direction, although I would have preffered other options.

Regarding this:


UNSC bid of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil rejected. Is Japan to blame?

I think that each one of them, should have come out with something to put in the table... Brazil should have found more Latin American backing, Germany a more European one, Japan an East Asian one, India... well, if not well supported in Muslim central Asia... could have lobbied more support elsewhere.

To put the blame in Japan, I think that is to go a little far.

On the other hand, South Africa should have been in the team, since there is a Continent of 900+ million people (and growing fast) without permanent representantion.

Sukotto
Feb 22, 2007, 05:01
We should get rid of the Security Council.
It was made primarily by the winners of WW2, and basically remains so today.

The US becoming a failed state (http://www.amazon.com/Failed-States-Abuse-Assault-Democracy/dp/0805079122) and definately should be removed from the Security Council. Only thing is, too many US citizens lack knowledge of the rest of the world and some nazi like John Bolton would probably say "I told you they've been out to get us".

Dr. J. M.
Feb 25, 2007, 07:07
I am of the ones that would have liked to see some reform in the UN to make it more democratic... This bid could have been an step in that direction, although I would have preffered other options.
Democratic reforms, like one person one vote? I'd only support that as long as the amount of contributions is distributed according to population (Of course this is pretty much unobtainable, as neither China nor India will or are able to bear the lion's share atm.)

Regarding this:
I think that each one of them, should have come out with something to put in the table... Brazil should have found more Latin American backing, Germany a more European one, Japan an East Asian one, India... well, if not well supported in Muslim central Asia... could have lobbied more support elsewhere.
A little bit too simplistic... For example Germany would have had better chances alone than Japan would have had alone. That's mainly due to the fact that Germany has great relations with France, is also actively backed by the UK, has historically very strong ties with the US and has good relations with Russia and China. Japan on the other hand has sour relations with China and is only actively backed by the US (I'm not so sure about the other three countries, but I guess they are neutral to positive...)

To put the blame in Japan, I think that is to go a little far. Yep, I agree.

On the other hand, South Africa should have been in the team, since there is a Continent of 900+ million people (and growing fast) without permanent representantion. Africa has other problems than that. They struggle with an AIDS epedemy, they are torn by civil wars, they lack necessary infrastructure and suffer from unfair trade relations or unbearable corruption. So trying to get a seat for South Africa has pretty much the lowest priority imaganable...

We should get rid of the Security Council.
It was made primarily by the winners of WW2, and basically remains so today. Unless there's a better alternative let's keep it as it is. Two European nations in this council sounds good to me.

The US becoming a failed state and definately should be removed from the Security Council. Only thing is, too many US citizens lack knowledge of the rest of the world and some nazi like John Bolton would probably say "I told you they've been out to get us". Right, remove the US as a failed state and keep China and Russia... We could add Iran and North Korea just for good measure, while we're at it...

Sukotto
Feb 26, 2007, 00:41
Unless there's a better alternative let's keep it as it is. Two European nations in this council sounds good to me.
UK, France, Russia. That looks like 3 to me. Since the majority of Russian political power/population is west of the Ural mountains (in Europe).



Right, remove the US as a failed state and keep China and Russia... We could add Iran and North Korea just for good measure, while we're at it...
Well, how many stolen elections have Russian and China had in the last 7 years? Have any of those two lied to their populations to start a war of aggression. Or are involved in just about every other ongoing war of conflict in some way or another? This last sentance few people in the US are aware about. Do China & Russia maintain a militarist society even though they have no REAL enemies? while maintaining tHE largest prison population on the planet, tossing addicts in cages, health care falling apart (when will the first American epidemic sweep the country? they've already LET an entire city drown) letting cities rot from the inside with the only solution from gov't to militarize the police forces (with automatic weapons and body armor they look like they belong in a combat zone). they don't care if kids in the inner city drop out of school in the 4TH~! grade (this is the current generations, not 60 years ago) But, hey, at least those people that drop out in the 4th grade tend to realize the US gov't is a total crock and not there to help the populous (unless maybe you're upper middle class and probably white) - notice I didn't state "Bush".

Unless you maintain that a country is not a "failed state" as long as there is a government that can remain in power and maintain a lid on the problems by any means necessary...if the maintenance of gov't is all that makes it NOT a failed state, then sure the US is not a failed state. Everything's A-ok. Just get those Hi-definition tvs out there quick. The spectacle is starting to fail.



SECURITY COUNCIL
So far I still maintain the opinion that it should be eliminated.
Let the General Assembly countries invent a replacement, if any.
It is unfair and undemocratic.
Why should the few rich countries get to decide where action should be taken?
Why the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq was addressed,
but not the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia.
Because of money and the maintenance of distribution of power in the world.

The UN General Assembly should be empowered. One country, one vote.
I disagree with the amounts paid by countries should be by population.
At least (still) for now. The world has still not recovered from the colonial and neo-colonial eras. It would be nonsensical to think such a calamity could fix itself in merely years or even a few decades. In fact some would argue we are still in one such era. (sarcasm from here): "oh, you know. All that wealth we've been extracting for centuries, well, we'll just keep doing it. Instead we'll let local people be the government officials, and since the "corporation" has always been the instrument of wealth extraction (*a historic tool of imperialism), we'll just tell you that you cannot take "their" property away from "them" in your country and now the "corporation" is just a regular (and fair) way of..., oh, I don't know..., we'll call it "conducting business" and denounce opposition to this and label it "communism".


If there must be a SC, at least have ZERO permanent members.
Maybe pick the new year's members at random.

Sukotto
Feb 26, 2007, 01:16
Perhaps we can look to people and movements gathering at the annual "World Social Forums" to come up with a replacement for the status quo UN Security Council.

CBT1979
Feb 27, 2007, 08:58
Honestly, the best thing to provide a better working UN security council, no nation should be able to use Veto!
The Veto right of the 5 permanent UN member is a big obstacle to reach resolutions since we had many Vetos from the USA and Russia which have hindered many resolutions to act.
Look at the Lebanon-Israel conflict for example when the USA used their Veto to block a step to stop Israel's onslaught.

The Veto option is a big slap in the face of democracy IMO.

Dr. J. M.
Mar 3, 2007, 01:41
UK, France, Russia. That looks like 3 to me. Since the majority of Russian political power/population is west of the Ural mountains (in Europe).
Alright, letfs narrow it down to gWestern Europeh, I didnft consider Russia as gEuropeh because it is not part of the EU.

Well, how many stolen elections have Russian and China had in the last 7 years? Is this supposed to be a joke? You cannot consider any election held in the Peoplefs Republic of China as genuine, thus all can be considered as stolen. In Russia itfs either 1 stolen election or 0. This depends on who you ask about Putins policy.
Have any of those two lied to their populations to start a war of aggression. If you consider the war in Chechnya (by Russia) or the war against your very own people (by China) a war of aggression...

Or are involved in just about every other ongoing war of conflict in some way or another? Yes, in some way or another they are involved via the UN Security Council

This last sentance few people in the US are aware about. Obviously.

Do China & Russia maintain a militarist society even though they have no REAL enemies? Yes, even more so than the US, imho.

while maintaining tHE largest prison population on the planet, tossing addicts in cages, No, but they have the highest number of people executed. Which is worse at least in my opinion.
health care falling apart (when will the first American epidemic sweep the country? they've already LET an entire city drown) What health care?! Their hospitals are a joke in comparison! And itfs more the rule than the exception that Chinese cities drown.
letting cities rot from the inside with the only solution from gov't to militarize the police forces (with automatic weapons and body armor they look like they belong in a combat zone). Youfve never been in either country, have you?
they don't care if kids in the inner city drop out of school in the 4TH~! grade (this is the current generations, not 60 years ago) Depending on where you go (especially in China) children do not attend school at all.
But, hey, at least those people that drop out in the 4th grade tend to realize the US gov't is a total crock and not there to help the populous (unless maybe you're upper middle class and probably white) - notice I didn't state "Bush". Since you obviously hold the same opinions as these drop-outs, does it mean that youfve dropped out of the 4th grade yourself? (Sorry, I had to say that, please donft take it seriously... I was just kidding.)

Unless you maintain that a country is not a "failed state" as long as there is a government that can remain in power and maintain a lid on the problems by any means necessary...if the maintenance of gov't is all that makes it NOT a failed state, then sure the US is not a failed state. Everything's A-ok. Just get those Hi-definition tvs out there quick. The spectacle is starting to fail. You should travel around more often. Try Cuba thatfs not that far off. If you are particularly brave go to Africa (not the tourist regions... try the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Or visit Russia and China yourselfc

Sukotto
Mar 3, 2007, 04:35
Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "state", since it is a tool of repression afterall, and any failed state, is a good state. Unless it results in deaths of course. hahahar.

Er, no joke. The last two presidential elections in the US are more easily verifiably stolen than those in China or Russia, which many do not expect to be "free & fair". (especially the former one) But people have a right to self-determination anyway.

Ongoing wars? Overt, covert. the crimes against humanity machine called the CIA. Both types of war. I tend to doubt the UN is involved in helping Israel plan its attack on Lebannon (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255) or
Indirectly Funding Al-Qaeda Linked Sunni Groups in Move to Counter Iran (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/28/150251)according to the highly reputable Seymour Hersh.

Cuba? I heard if you complain about waiting in line for ice cream for an hour and you are a foreigner they will give you yours right away. Why would I want to visit GIJoe?

The US doesn't pretend to want to be like the countries in Africa or Latin America. The comparison is usually to the "rich-industialized" countries that supposedly can afford stuff like health care and to not be subtly preparing for martial law. And besides the US was supposed to be the wealthies country in the world and also prisons are obsolete, or at least Angela Davis asks if they are. In fact many in the US believe their country to be above or better than any other country in the world. Which is a total joke for no other reason than it is arrogant and a mere opinion. People tend like their homes best. And claim it to be a leader. (leave aside for now the fact that any such claim is a self-appointed one) But the US leads the world in incarceration. Which I cannot compare to the death penalty because they are both symptoms of a police state. And then there's the stuff Bush has been doing.....

Afterall,
"All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten" hehe

Sukotto
Mar 3, 2007, 05:04
Since you obviously hold the same opinions as these drop-outs, does it mean that youfve dropped out of the 4th grade yourself? (Sorry, I had to say that, please donft take it seriously... I was just kidding.)

Haha. Awesome. No, they just didn't get full indoctrination.
Sirius2B (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=438803&postcount=38)
says the following which I take for my own ends here:

here is an example of what I said about the recent hypocrecy of the term "Westernization".... look for example the books of Samuel Huntington (he theaches racism in Harvard)... saying that Latin America has a "Latin culture", and therefore it is not "Western"



You should travel around more often. Try Cuba thatfs not that far off. If you are particularly brave go to Africa (not the tourist regions... try the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Or visit Russia and China yourselfc

I might get killed. The legacy of King Leopold II didn't end with his death. Other exploiters learned from his example and continued to adapted/evolve. But they always say the same basic thing: the way things are is natural. Of course.

Dr. J. M.
Mar 3, 2007, 21:35
Haha. Awesome. No, they just didn't get full indoctrination.
Ah, I see, so education means indoctrination, huh? Don't get me wrong, criticism is vital to every society, but your criticism of the US as a 'failed state' is way off the mark (considering that you did not criticize China or Russia makes your assertion ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.). Unless you think that the vast majority of states all around the world are failures, that is.

I might get killed. The legacy of King Leopold II didn't end with his death. Other exploiters learned from his example and continued to adapted/evolve. But they always say the same basic thing: the way things are is natural. Of course.
Natural? Probably. How things are in nature is not how they ought to be. The particular example is the logical outcome of a deeply flawed colonial policy. But how does this affect the US as a failed state? (Probalby a subtle criticism of the US foreign policy I guess.)
How do you define a 'failed state' anyway?

Sukotto
Mar 17, 2007, 08:40
You should travel around more often. Try Cuba thatfs not that far off. If you are particularly brave go to Africa (not the tourist regions... try the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Or visit Russia and China yourselfc


I might get offed by some thugs the US once armed and paid to kill, murder, and rape their own people, in the name of anti-communism, but really in defense of corporate (legal entities) interests, that continue to rape other people's countries, see Shell Oil or Cheveron in Nigeria for 2 examples.
Or those that got guns from rev Pat Robertson (http://www.gregpalast.com/pat-robertson-i-dont-have-to-be-nice-to-the-spirit-of-the-antichrist/) in Congo (then Zaire)
Or that got raped by "nice" colonial take-over mechanisms such as the IMF and World Bank and a bribed local official.

The scariest people live in washington

Sukotto
Mar 17, 2007, 08:51
Ah, I see, so education means indoctrination, huh? Don't get me wrong, criticism is vital to every society, but your criticism of the US as a 'failed state' is way off the mark (considering that you did not criticize China or Russia makes your assertion ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.). Unless you think that the vast majority of states all around the world are failures, that is.
Natural? Probably. How things are in nature is not how they ought to be. The particular example is the logical outcome of a deeply flawed colonial policy. But how does this affect the US as a failed state? (Probalby a subtle criticism of the US foreign policy I guess.)
How do you define a 'failed state' anyway?


Uh, yes. "a deeply flawed colonial policy". Not that.. there.. is... a good colonial policy..., right?
I mean, maybe I'm reading your words wrong, but you're not suggesting that, are you?
The IMF, World Bank are logical extensions of Leopold's system of exploitation. He wanted to "open" up the Congo to "free trade" for all (colonial powers) to exploit in peace(among each other). Even tried to mark himself as a savior of the area. What a joke. Just as the exploiters of the World Bank and IMF are. People are constantly jump ship or leak documents about the bad stuff they do from behind the P.R. front. Economist Joseph Stiglitz won some prizes and denounced those institutions as bunk.

I agree,
Russia and China probably dissappear people too,
just as the US does. And torture, in the name of
state security, of course...

Dr. J. M.
Mar 18, 2007, 01:19
Uh, yes. "a deeply flawed colonial policy". Not that.. there.. is... a good colonial policy..., right?
I mean, maybe I'm reading your words wrong, but you're not suggesting that, are you? Well, actually no, no I'm not suggesting that. I merely wanted to specifiy what kind of policy was deeply flawed in that case. I thought "foreign policy" was a too broad term for that.

The IMF, World Bank are logical extensions of Leopold's system of exploitation. He wanted to "open" up the Congo to "free trade" for all (colonial powers) to exploit in peace(among each other). Even tried to mark himself as a savior of the area. What a joke. Just as the exploiters of the World Bank and IMF are. People are constantly jump ship or leak documents about the bad stuff they do from behind the P.R. front. Economist Joseph Stiglitz won some prizes and denounced those institutions as bunk.
I'm not too fond of the IMF and the World Bank myself, because, as you correctly point out, they hurt more than they help (and those who are 'helped' by these institutions don't need help...)

I agree,
Russia and China probably dissappear people too,
just as the US does. And torture, in the name of
state security, of course...
It's not the question whether or not a state (or for that matter any human being) has flaws or behaves in an immoral way, the question is: to what extend?